What is at first striking is the beauty of our cosmos, a gigantic beauty which might make us ask the question as to the intention which presided over its birth "why does something exist rather than nothing?" For the religious man, the cause of causes is God, and God is love, so the answer is immediate. Love is immanent in creation. For the physicist, the cause of causes is unknown and he looks for it. In his opening address to the European Academy of Science, Arts and Letters workshop which was held in Brussels in 2000, Ilya Prigogine declared that to answer the eternal question of what had caused the big bang, it was possible that it had been a quantum fluctuation. It remains to be seen what is a quantum fluctuation in the absence of matter and time. It's a mystery. Einstein in fact considered that "the most wonderful experience that a man can have is that of mystery". It is, he said the fundamental emotion that is at the origin of true art and true science. ...it is this emotion which constitutes true religiousness; in this sense and in this sense only, I am a deeply religious man".

So Einstein recognised that his very person constituted a bridge between religion and science. In addition to being a physical peculiarity, the big bang is also a philosophical ambiguity to the extent to which it is the point of convergence of religions and sciences, of quantum physics and general relativity. Ambiguity, in particular, when it is agreed that science and religion are methodologically incompatible, whereas Einstein condemned quantum physics at its birth, declaring "God does not play dice" and Hawking says that if one day we manage to work out a theory of Everything,"we shall know God's plan".

In 1935, in order to demonstrate to Bohr that his analysis of quantum physics resulted in false conclusions, Einstein and two other physicists, Boris Podolsky and Rosen, organised an imaginary experiment in the United States in order to measure the position and the moment of a pair of proton systems. Using quantum mechanics, they obtained extremely surprising results, which lead them to conclude that this theory did not provide a complete description of physical reality. These truly paradoxical results are based on impeccable reasoning, but their conclusion according to which the theory is incomplete is nevertheless not justified. The fundamental difference between the two theories is that in traditional physics the system studied is considered as already including the value which is the subject of the measurement, which is not the case in quantum physics, in which the measurement disturbs the system.

Does nature behave in accordance with the predictions of quantum mechanics? Interpretation of the results is based on an important theorem produced by the British physicist John Stewart Bell. Experiments have been carried out in several laboratories with photons instead of protons, the analysis being identical, and the results indicate the validity of Bell's theorem in convincing fashion. That is to say that the results observed confirm those obtained by quantum mechanics and cannot be explained by means of a determinist theory, with hidden variables, based on the concept of locality. This leads us to the conclusion that the two protons are in correlation and that a measurement carried out on one of them affects the other, regardless of the distance between them. This is Bell's theorem, any reality can only be non-local. Alain Aspect and his colleagues in Paris demonstrated experimentally the pertinence of this conclusion in 1982, and showed that quantum systems comprise relations between themselves that cannot be explained by traditional physics. Consequently, the imaginary EPR experiment demonstrated thoroughly that Bohr was right in his opposition to Einstein: the theory of quantum physics is valid, it implies "an indivisible whole at the centre of which the instrument of observation is inseparable from that which is observed".

The quantum whole of Bohr and the idea of non-locality which we can deduce from Bell's theorem are new ways of considering the universe. Nature was generally perceived as being unified in this way until a more mechanistic science appeared, during the seventeenth century. However, the public has always intuitively had this sense of its interconnection with nature. Feelings of the same order are felt by artists and mystics in all cultures. In fact, it seems more natural to perceive the universe as interconnected and immanent, than as mechanical and dissociated. The philosopher Edmond Hussel maintains that the crisis with which modern men and women are confronted is due to the insignificance of the world which surrounds them. He locates the origin of this in the Caresian-Newtonian desire to objectify nature: When nature becomes an object, human values and relationships are sacrificed. The result is an empty universe, devoid of sense.

For we artists, this interconnection with nature comes to us in the form of signs, showing us the path, if we make ourselves aware of their messages, and if we have the sense of a purpose in life...

For the general public and scientists, these signs were until recently nothing more than simple coincidences. Carl Jung, the universally known psychoanalyst, after having hesitated for several years, was one of the first people to do in depth research on this phenomenon, which he called synchronicity. He wrote:

"If I have now overcome my hesitation and tackled the subject head on it is essentially because my experiences of synchronicity phenomena have multiplied over several decades." And he defined synchronicity as the coincidence in time of a minimum of two events, without any causal relationship, both having the same meaning. On this subject, certain scientists seem to have totally reconsidered their position, including in particular, John Wheeler, who writes: "today we learn, in the quantum world, that even to observe an object as minute as an electron, we have to get into it....so the old term observer should be banished from our vocabulary and replaced by participant. This is how we have arrived at the idea that the universe is participative."

As artists, we must therefore have both the will and the means to interpret the signs, and to apply them to the cause to whose benefit they will obtain the best results. As far as will power is concerned, it is we who have to make the effort – a real effort. As for the means, we shall obtain them if we learn to recognise the essential characteristics of synchronicity events, which are often very fleeting. In this field, Carl Jung gives as an example the case of one of his patients, a young woman who had become psychologically inaccessible, owing to her most extreme Cartesian rationalism, which had convinced her that she knew better than anyone else. Jung wrote:

"After several fruitless attempts to temper her rationalism with a more human form of understanding I had no other alternative than to hope, in desperation, that something unexpected and irrational would happen, an event which would shatter the intellectual sarcophagus in which she had hermetically sealed herself ..... She had experienced a vivid dream the previous night, in which someone had offered her a golden beetle – an expensive item of jewellery. While she related her dream to me, I heard a light tapping on the window behind me. I turned round and discovered a large insect was tapping on the window from outside obviously trying to get into the darkened room. This seemed very strange to me. Immediately I opened the window and caught the insect in flight. It was a common beetle, the "Cetonia aurata", whose golden green colour much resembled that of a golden beetle. I held the insect out to my patient and said: "Here is your beetle". It was this event which really pierced the armour of her rationalism and melted the ice of her intellectual resistance. The treatment could then continue and gave satisfactory results."

This therefore allows us to understand why Jung had found in Wolfgang Pauli a physicist of great notoriety who validated the theory of synchronicity in favour of a new paradigm of physics. Thus, in the present state of our advanced knowledge, when we consider the infinitely small, the principle of non-locality means that events must be in infinite correlation within a unified field in which any information is present holographically at all points and therefore instantly passed on. We must then admit that a unified field is also a field of intelligence and that this is where our conscience will have to choose its path in order to approach the real. If it opts for the simple relationship of subject to object, its perception of the real will be limited to matter. But it will intuitively feel that in other states there exists a Whole in which the field of intelligence anticipates in relation with matter. In this way we conceive that the universe is essentially a great thought animated by the spirit, according to the conclusions of the Berkeley physicists. In this psycho-physical Whole, the physicist and the psychologist would observe the same world in two different ways, the material way and the psychic way. But as "a thing in itself" this world would be essentially transcendent.

Jung wrote that "synchronicity assumes therefore by definition that the radical distinction between "interior" and "exterior" is erroneous. The interior phenomena – feelings, values, thoughts, dreams, intuitions, aspirations....can be (and in a decisive way often are) closely linked to "external" events. a telephone call, presents, interactions, love affairs etc.. Synchronistic events give us a vision of the world as a unified field in which individual experience and action are fundamentally linked to others." Therefore according to Jung, it is synchronicity which brings to the Whole the element of affectivity in which the soul of man expresses itself and of which physics knows nothing. Now, it is by means of this affectivity that I am able to feel myself to be in unity, in sympathy with others, by means of my efforts and my outreaching motivation, so that paradise becomes other people, in the magical beauty of our cosmos.

Moreover, the subject of the appearance of love in the history of the cosmos goes beyond human sciences, as this love seems to extend, admittedly in certain special forms, to the whole of the animal kingdom: we only have to observe the behaviour of pets with regard to man, on the one hand, and between themselves, towards their offspring, their group, their herd etc.. on the other. In order for life to survive, there has patently had to arise an intense motivation, a sort of ardent obligation, both physical and psychic, as evolution has progressed. In this case, love would be necessary, but not sufficient, as its beauty has proved to be increasingly scintillating in the search for progress by humanity towards the sublime, as is borne out by the history of our religions, our art and our science. For thousands of years, love has enriched itself with all the nuances of friendship, comradeship, charity and solidarity, none of which are in any way an obligation associated with the simple survival of the species, and which are above all remarkable for their gratuitousness.

At the cutting edge of research in human sciences, we observe, in case studies of patients who have returned from near death experiences, that they practically all talk of having experienced in these rare moments an immense, infinite love, which submerged them to the point where they wanted to share it with the whole of humanity, and which will condition their affective behaviour for the rest of their days.

At the cutting edge of research also, from the moral point of view, we are now looking at the origin of our sense of good and evil. The controversy concerning the fundamentals of morals, which has lasted for two centuries, began in the eighteenth century, pitting Hume, who favoured feeling, against Kant, who favoured reason. In this simple duality, imaginary "Cornelian" life or death choice experiences in favour of one person rather than another, troubled philosophers and psychologists until quite recently. Today, research into the psychological bases of morality, with the benefit of laboratory cerebral imaging, show that there is interactivity between reason and emotion, and reveal the circumstances in which or the other prevail. These discoveries have a major importance in the understanding of our way of thinking about the problems with which we are confronted, both on the personal and the political level, as for example with stem cells, abortion, capital punishment or war.

Evolution biologists are now discovering elements of morality in the animal world, in particular with the primates who evidence equity, with behaviour in accordance with certain adaptive social codes which enable them to avoid conflicts. And the psychosociologist Jonathan Haidt, of the University of Virginia has summarised heuristic elements which enable us to make efficient decisions on the basis of limited information, with particular emphasis on the importance of the emotions, which he calls "moral intuitions".

Bloom, a development psychologist who studies the biological birth of moral sense in man, submitted one year old children to tests, which revealed that children consider as friends those people who help them, which constitutes the first element in the construction of their moral sense. So we can, with all the technological resources at the disposal of modern science, able to answer the eternal questions posed by philosophers in this field, which should enable us to approach the moral problems of our age in a more informed manner.

On the contrary however, the life which has been born in our cosmos, also experiences the pitiless law of the jungle, the struggle for life, according to which each living being is at once the prey and the predator of "the other". Man can draw nihilistic conclusions regarding the deep meaning of existence from this. The literature and philosophy of Sartre express this to the point of satiety, declaring "hell is other people" on the one hand, and that the simple fact of dying makes life absurd, on the other. In the present state of collapse of the moral values of our society, we can only really blame ourselves for this atmosphere of the end of civilisation which we have created, and not the fact that the cosmos is the bringer of the phenomenon of life, limited in time.

Given the immense notoriety of this philosopher, we cannot but combat the effect of such a message on the collective consciousness, on that of young people in particular, who no longer have any reason to raise a family and who only have drugs and suicide as a way out. Sartre did not ask the question as to how our cosmos, our physical universe, was able to engender love. He did not see that in our mental and moral universe, love constitutes the symmetrics of the beauty of our physical universe. This is the measure of the responsibility of the artist towards society. I therefore object strongly to the proposition that our universe is absurd. Through its immense beauty and by encouraging the birth of life, it has engendered love. It is only the fruit of an imperfect creation, which is ours to perfect to the limit of our possibilities, our skills and our mutual responsibilities: Which are the survival of our humanity in peace and harmony in order that paradise should be other people. Thus, art and science have today become indissociable.

Each of us participates individually in the collective consciousness by the lives we lead, our will to progress in life by the creation of a family, by our work, our vote, our voluntary work, the quality of our relations with others, all of which lead to the creation of a positive atmosphere and good understanding between human beings. Throughout history, we find important and extremely positive markers, such as that of the Renaissance and the creation of Europe, which should serve as examples to us of what the wisdom of peoples is capable of accomplishing.

As simple citizens, men or women, the general public, learned people, artists, soldiers or priests, faced with war, we are therefore all equal before this feeling of the impossibility of preventing it to the extent to which we feel confronted by an enemy. The scientist who is capable of carrying through research into a weapon of mass destruction experiences an intense test of conscience, which is all the more acute since his intelligence makes him sensitive to the special dimension of his responsibility to mankind. But he is also a man, a simple citizen with all his doubts, his weaknesses and his questions faced with what he thinks is his enemy. Because what is striking in the history of humanity is this propensity which man has to see only war as the solution to the tensions which exist between peoples, such as for example, Hitler, who described in Mein Kampf, his youthful enthusiasm in 1914 when following the assassination of the Archduke Francois Ferdinand at Sarajevo, how he felt that "finally war will be inevitable".

And so I wonder what this simple citizen that I am, crushed by all this heavy past of eternal wars, is capable of doing, personally, in order to encourage the emergence of peace. "Thou shalt not kill" religion teaches us. So be it, but my father who was gassed at Verdun in 1917, had come to the battle field with a flower in the barrel of his gun, convinced that this war was worth the final engagement because it was to be the last. Unfortunately, Marechal Foch already criticised the Treaty of Versailles, which cut Germany in two by the Dantzig corridor, and predicted that as a result there would be a new war within the next twenty years, which turned out to be true to within the year, thereby justifying the popular adage according to which "there have always been wars and there always will be".

My father was fired with enthusiasm by the considered vow of Aristide Briant to make a political rapprochement between France and Germany, while agreeing that it was pure utopia as far as the general opinion at the time was concerned. Well this is precisely what we have managed to do! What was not credible in the thirties was therefore possible, and beyond all hopes, since around France and Germany we have managed to forge, in a climate of general enthusiasm and to the admiration of the rest of the world, a Europe of 25 nations. Because of this, it is now war in Europe that has become a utopia, after 23 wars in 4 centuries. The European reality thus invalidates the adage according to which "there have always been wars and there always will be", it proves that that is achievable, and should therefore serve as an example.

I was brought up in the shadow of the bombs of the second world war. As a young student I felt this crushing effect to the depths of my being, both physically and morally. With fire in my stomach, I wanted to have been a fighter pilot so that I could at least defend my family from the bombardments, even though I was aware that life in that job could be measured in a few hours of operational flight. Unfortunately I was too young and I was just a simple citizen in the midst of a nation, drawn towards a combat which could not be mine, after our debacle in 1940.

In fact, I became a fighter pilot in memory of all that, still with the fire in my stomach, because there was the debate between "thou shall not kill" and the simple duty of the defence of my nation, of my family. This is a military profession, with an Order and a Sense. This all has to be placed in an atmosphere in which there was a threat of a worldwide nuclear war, which could have broken out at any time, when for the anniversary of the 4th Allied tatctical air force, we led out 800 fighter planes, against the iron curtain, and only turned back at the last moment. What was I then, but a minute part of this immense force of war, which I had chosen to obey? As a combatant, I had to attack to defend, without asking myself questions.

To defend. I have thought a lot about the way in which I could have defended my family against the nuclear holocaust, and I even thought of building an anti- nuclear shelter underneath our house. One day I brought up the subject around the table to my wife and children. The children replied that if the idea was to survive nuclear destruction, it wasn't worth building the shelter, which brought an end to my question. Today, I observe that there are some 27 000 nuclear weapons in the world.

Today, I am a painter. His particular sensitivity makes the artist the weakest of the weak. Faced with war, he is both totally bereft of defence and in total opposition, because his aim is to create beauty, to make, to build real things, to enchant souls, to produce life, whereas war is the bringer of horror, of destruction and death. The most extreme case of the artist-martyr is Dimitri Chostakovitch who, in the war between nazism and stalinism, had to physically and morally survive, on the one hand, personal threats from Stalin and on the other, the intrigues of his colleagues. His 7th symphony, entitled "Leningrad" describes the siege of the town in 1941. His 8th symphony is entitled "Meditiations on the horrors of war". His string quartet N° 8 is inspired by the destruction of Dresden in 1945 and dedicated to the memory of the victims of fascism and war.

In his memoires he declares "Most of my symphonies are funeral monuments"

Chostakovitch, who had sung of the resistance of the Russian people in his 7th symphony "Leningrad" said of his 8th symphony: "I wanted to recreate the inner feelings of a human being stunned by the gigantic hammer of war. I tried to tell of his anxiety and suffering, his courage and his joy. All these pshycic states have acquired a special clarity, lit by the brazier of war" But however painful a work the 8th symphony is, its blackness can be interpreted in many ways. As the poet Ilya Ehrenbourg sais so candidly after having witnessed its creation: "Music has the immense advantage of being able to say everything without mentioning anything. "This is precisely where the difficulty lies: In what way have all these magnificent works of Chostatkovitch had any effect against war, in the collective consciousness?

When you hear them you don't need to be initiated to music to feel the terror, the anguish, and the deep suffering which Chostakovitch projects on to us by means of his symphonies, whose artistic quality gives them a timeless value: Without using words, they convince their audience in a direct and powerful way of the inanity of war, on a global scale, by radio broadcasting and therefore by transmission to the collective consciousness. In this way, they constitute a sort of safe and everlasting simulation of warlike instincts, which provoke a peaceful state of mind by rejection.

The arab-israeli classical music orchestra formed by Barenboim and Said, which gave a concert in Ramallah, in Palestine, in August 2005, is the perfect demonstration of what can be done, against all expectations, and with the greatest effectiveness. Its conductor, Daniel Barenboim declared: "I have no political solution to offer to bring an end to the Israelo-Palestinian conflict, but each member of the orchestra transmits his perception of the suffering of the other by his music". "Our group is not simply a hope, but a model" said the israelo-palestinian cellist, Nabil Abboud Ashkar.

As ofr one third of the orchestra, Pablo Martos is part of the Spanish musicians recruited by means of the Andalousian Youth Orchestra (OJA) from Andalousian conservatories. He considers that the Spanish have a fundamental role to play in the israelo-arab project of reconciliation by music. He declares: "Our history places us at the crossroads of all cultures. It seems to me that in this orchestra we play a role of mediation in the occasionally tense discussions which can break out at not strictly musical moments"

In the scientific world, Einstein, a pacifist who was outraged by the horrors of the first world war, wrote to the American President Roosevelt to suggest the construction of the atomic bomb in the face of the rise to power of the Nazis in Germany. It was the starting point of an arms race on a global scale which was born in the mind of a man who was both a scientist and a simple citizen. Roosevelt committed the United States to war in October 1941 and launched the nuclear weapons programme. Here then are two men, Einstein and Roosevelt, each as reticent as the other with regard to this weapon, who don't see any other way but to take such a decision, faced with the avowed intentions of Hitler.

At the end of the war and after going to Hiroshima to assess the damage caused by the atom bomb, scientists founded the federation of American Scientists together with Albert Einstein, in order to fight against nuclear proliferation and the arms race.

In 1942, Oppenheimer, who was just as much a pacifist as Einstein, directed the whole of the Manhattan project, which made him world famous as "the father of the atomic bomb". In 1945, two months after the use of two of these bombs at Hiroshima and Nagazaki, he resigned in order to work for world peace by proposing an international committee on the regulation of atomic energy.

One day Oppenheimer replied to journalist who was asking him about the possible consequences of technological progress: "why are you so worried about the future of a condemned world?" which is particularly eloquent proof of the state of mind of this scientist regarding humanity at war.

Sakharov, a humanist physicist and a dissident in the "pantheon of the history of science" received the Stalin Prize in 1969 for the production of the hydrogen bomb, and the Nobel Peace Prize in 1975, for having ardently defended human rights in the Soviet Union, for which at the time he underwent torture. For the western scientists who would boycott their soviet counterparts, by his own immolation, he constituted a strong symbol of resistance to an inhuman regime which placed scientific work in opposition to human rights. Ever since, we have talked about the idea that "the atomic bomb destroyed war" It is certain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons between antagonistic countries seems to date to have created an invincible argument of deterrence, given the possibility of total mutual destruction.

Therefore humanity at all levels of the social scale, has been living ever since with the ambiguity of the aspiration towards eternal peace – expressed by Kant as early as the 18th century – and the inevitability of war. Kant makes the assumption that the law, which he calls cosmopolitics, wiil one day enable men to perceive themselves as members of a universal state, which is to say as citizens of the world, which would lead to the disappearance of armies. This is therefore the first evocation of the concept of globalisation, two centuries ago, through International law, but which was largely considered as a philosophers pious hope, if not a utopia.

I observe that in our age, globalisation is beginning to impose itself on us with, it seems the irresistible force inherent in scientific, artistic, technological, educational and medical exchange, as part of programmes destined to counter epidemics and natural disasters and in particular commercial activities. The construction of Europe began to take root in the mind of Jean Monnet Commissioner for Planning immediately after the liberation in 1945. He wanted to set out the broad lines of a European union based on practical achievements and not abstractions. On 9th May 1950, Robert Schuman, the French Minister of foreign Affairs, launched the idea of a European Community of Coal and Steel, the CECA, at a time when resentment was still felt, and began the process of franco-german rapprochement. The CECA began its activities in 1951, with Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxemburg and Holland. On 10th August 1952, Jean Monnet naturally became Chairman of the High Authority of the new institution, in Luxemburg.

It is very striking to the speed with which such a radical conversion took place in the mutual perception of countries responsible for tens of millions of deaths during the second world war, as soon as hostilities ceased, as though they felt a burning obligation to undertake a common project of work together.

We can therefore conclude that work in common is one of the most powerful factors in union, and therefore peace between men. We are at present at a point of convergence of particularly strong, rich and favourable trends towards globalisation, with in addition, proof in the form of the creation of the European Union between populations who have in a permanent state of war throughout the centuries. Added to this, we no longer have the choice, as global terrorism, armed with weapons of mass destruction has invalidated the principle that nuclear weapons killed war, which can only apply between nations as a balance of terror. We are therefore all concerned, personally, directly and at all levels. We should first publicly recognise our errors, and repent of them as did Pope Jean-Paul II for the universal catholic church for example, and create a climate of understanding between ourselves by eliminating everything which can contribute to a nihilistic psychosis with respect to life.

From the point of view of science, researchers will have to look in depth and without any comfortable compromises, at the moral consequences of their work. Einstein, Oppenheimer and Sakharov did indeed do this, but they didn't manage to avoid the use of nuclear weapons in a war situation, facing an enemy. In a situation of globalised humanity, in the absence of an enemy, they would not have had to do it.

From the point of view of art, if the slogan of the nihilist "do whatever you want" persists, we no longer have any reason to do anything. We cannot continue like this, unless we choose to deny ourselves as artists, and apologise for our laziness, in an atmosphere in which art is proclaimed dead and non existent.

I observe that this "atmosphere of non art" has managed to cause the destruction of our contemporary art, whereas scientists have succeeded in advancing science in the face of a paradoxical and uncomfortable climate for reasoning. "if you believe in quantum physics, you cannot but take it seriously" said Feynman. Since scientists have the advantage of being able to experimentally verify their theories, artist should recognise that the negative reactions of the general public constitute precisely for them the equivalent of experimental verification for the scientist. They should therefore publicly repent for their imposture, and get back to work, at a deep level, if they want to rediscover inspiration worthy of the name.

Fortunately, the general public, which is the last bastion of sincerity of judgement, has retained its common sense and refused to join this decadent movement of society, rejecting the symbol of: non-art. Clearly, the situation has assumed truly alarming proportions if the French Minister of Culture has ordered a major sociological study into "The rejection of contemporary art".

How, then, are we to find our way in all this? We shall have to reconnect with our moral, ideological and aesthetic values. Like the lost pilot searching for the star. For us, it will be our spirituality. Then we shall have to take up again from the last known point on our road: for us, it will be nature, which continuously provides us with a lesson of eternal beauty which we shall have to save. We shall have to work very hard to be inspired, to have the honour of practising an art which exists outside of time.

In this way, the scientist and the artist, the holy man and the politician, the businessman and the financier will have to bring their efforts together in order to end this era of negativity and despair in which we live, and co-operate to ensure the emergence of a new Renaissance on our planet by the eradication of poverty since, if our will is equal to the gravity of the situation, we have the means to do it. I remember that in 1974, the dominant groups in the wealthy countries promised to "eliminate poverty" in the year 2000, the threshold of absolute poverty being fixed at 2 dollars revenue per day and per person. Unfortunately, the dominant groups in the wealthy countries and the elites in power in the poor countries have not respected the commitments which they made. Even more seriously, they have implemented commercial, financial, ecological and technological policies which have reinforced the causes of continuing poverty in populations who were already extremely diminished.

It is a well-known fact that for certain people this impoverishment leads to terrorism, which is a new form of war in our post modern humanity, and a paradoxical form of war which justifies its action by its religious practice whereas the elements common to all major religions are love, compassion, and tolerance. It was in this spirit that Pope John Paul II decided to organise the interreligious meetings of Assisi. He declared: "The anguish attaching to peace between men and between peoples forced us together to pray but not to pray together".

In 1993, religious leaders meeting together for the first time in Milan for the encounter "Men and religions" launched this appeal to the world "Let no hatred, no conflict, no war, find any encouragement in religion. War cannot be motivated by religion! Let religious words always be words of peace! Let the path of faith be open to dialogue and understanding! Let religions inspire our hearts and bring peace to the earth!" The message could not be clearer and it only remains to convince budding terrorists that if they can see no other way out of problems which their hatred is creating, then they are fighting a lost cause, like the Japanese kamikaze and the end of the Second World War. Then it will only remain for them to comply with the appeal made to the world by their religious leaders in Milan in 1993. In this spirit, Cardinal Etchegaray declared: In recent years, the great many people have heard this appeal and have taken up the cause of peace and dialogue in countries all over the world. Often, the spirit of dialogue and understanding has led to reconciliation.

The Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the specialemissary of Pope Benoit XVI and representative of the Holy See at the UNO summit on 16th September 2005, declared: "My voice echoes that of Catholics throughout the world who see in the United Nations an institution which is increasingly necessary for the peace and progress of all humanity". He it talked both of the necessity of finding ways of "disarming the aggressor" and of the "responsibility of protecting" when he said: "Our present commitment to the creation of a culture able to prevent conflicts is important, but we should also look in-depth at the problem of the use of force in order to disarm the aggressor. The "responsibility for protecting" arises from a very important political and legal concept which has been enriched throughout the 60 years of existence of the UNO. In this way, it refers to the essential core of the preeminence of the dignity of all men and women as persons over any state or any ideological system".
The Holy See is therefore favourable to the Peacebuilding Commission, which could set out the major lines of an ambitious strategy and carry through, in order to overcome ethnic brutality which is the source of conflict and which can always revive it.

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was created on 16th November 1945. The most important thing for this specialised agency is not to build classrooms in devastating countries or to restore world heritage sites. The aim fixed by the organisation is vast an ambitious: to build peace in men's minds through education, science, culture and communication.

Personally, as an artist, I have attempted for several years, in vain, to give away all my work, without asking for anything in exchange. This work has been a search for beauty in harmony between art, science and spirituality over 33 years. This would seem to demonstrate that society is not yet ready to accept a donation. But I am optimistic, it is like a message in a bottle, which I throw into this vast sea which is the cosmos in which I discovered love, to which in the end I contribute, with immense gratitude, by the procreation of beauty and to which I feel invited.